Why this matters: the team is the project
There is nothing more important to the success of a project than the people who make up the team. Good people who possess the knowledge, experience, and motivation to get the job done are critical to project success — and assembling a good team is especially important when managing a project, because unlike a functional manager you almost never get to keep them.
The PM's challenge breaks into three sequential problems, each covered in this article:
- Build the team — sourcing, forming, getting them productive
- Hold the team together — managing the inevitable conflict
- Lead the team through change — because every project is a change
What & How: building the team
five-stage team-development model five stages of team development
Practice note: five-stage team-development model A stage-based model (the five-stage team-development model, 1965; "adjourning" added 1977) describing the predictable phases a team passes through from initial assembly to disbanding: Forming → Storming → Norming → Performing → Adjourning.
Practice note: The practice point most candidates miss The majority of team development should occur before the project has formally commenced and should be documented in the Resource (HR) Plan. The goal is to "hit the ground running" — only possible if the team already knows their roles and what is expected of them. Ideally the team will feel like a cohesive unit before the project is underway. PMs who allow Forming and Storming to happen on the customer's clock pay for it twice — once in time, once in trust.
Awareness of the stages matters because:
- It normalises conflict in the Storming phase rather than catastrophising it
- It tells you which leadership behaviours are needed at each stage (heavy direction in Forming, mediation in Storming, coaching in Norming, delegation in Performing)
- It makes the Adjourning stage deliberate — an opportunity for recognition and lessons-learned that benefits the next project, not an afterthought
Sourcing the team: in-house vs external
The supplied source frames the build-or-borrow decision cleanly:
| In-house resources | External resources | |
|---|---|---|
| Pros | Already know the organisation, culture, systems, and politics; existing skills transfer easily; already on the payroll — no procurement overhead | Bring specialist skills not held internally; provide quantity when scarce skills are needed; bring fresh perspective when venturing into a genuinely new domain |
| Cons | May lack specialist skills; may be over-committed to BAU; may bring legacy thinking | Higher loaded cost; require security clearance and onboarding; loyalty divided; relationship governed by procurement contract not line management |
| Governance | Standard internal HR processes | Procurement plan applies — external resources must be obtained per organisational policy and (for defence) applicable contract framework contracting |
Practice note: Defence project sourcing When a major contractor stood up the submarine life-extension programme, the PM team faced exactly this trade-off: keep specialist welders and submariners in-house (lower cost, deeper context, security cleared) versus bring in external naval architects from the UK and Sweden (specialist skill, no other source). The answer was both — and the procurement plan dictated how the externals came aboard.
Virtual teams: five rules for success
Virtual teams are now the default for any programme with sites in an Australian delivery site, another Australian delivery site, the UK, and the US (e.g., multinational advanced-capability partnership workstreams). The supplied material identifies rules drawn from the team-leadership literature:
- Use virtual teams only for projects that are challenging and interesting — meaningful work attracts effort that bridges the distance gap
- Solicit volunteers wherever possible — enthusiasm compensates for the friction of distributed work
- Include a few members who already know each other — they form the social scaffolding for newcomers
- Ensure roughly one in six or seven are "boundary spanners" — people with extensive outside contacts who broker information across silos
- Create a shared online resource — a single source of truth for collaboration, brainstorming, and team learning
- Encourage frequent communication — but don't manufacture social gatherings; let them emerge naturally
- Divide work into geographically independent modules — so progress in one location is not gated on delays in another
Holding the team together: conflict management
Practice note: Conflict is not always destructive Despite being unpleasant, conflict can have positive payoffs when handled well. Practical application requires recognising at least five.
Positive payoffs of conflict
- Pressures and frustrations are released (rather than festering)
- New perspectives and information are gathered about the other side
- New perspectives are gained about our own side
- Better decision-making and problem-solving can take place
- Cohesiveness can increase as the team works through it
- Complacency is challenged
- Change can be unlocked
- Differences can be appreciated rather than resented
- Intrapersonal conflicts can be resolved
conflict-escalation model Stages of Conflict-escalation model, drawing on the Conflict Resolution Network, describes a five-stage escalation:
Practice note: The earlier you intervene, the cheaper the resolution Discomforts can be addressed in a hallway conversation. Crises require formal mediation, restructured teams, and sometimes legal involvement. The PM's job is to detect the signal at stage 1 or 2 — which is exactly why sensitivity is one of the four PM selection characteristics from 01-pm-role-functions-hr-planning.
five-mode conflict framework conflict modes
The supplied five-mode conflict framework provides a useful two-axis model of how people respond to conflict, plotted against assertiveness (concern for self) and cooperativeness (concern for others). Five styles emerge:
| Style | Assertive? | Cooperative? | What it does | When it fits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competing | High | Low | Resolves conflict by satisfying one's own needs at the expense of another's | Emergencies; unpopular decisions; defending against exploitation |
| Collaborating / Integrating | High | High | Seeks an advantageous solution for all parties | Complex issues with high stakes; building long-term relationships |
| Compromising | Medium | Medium | Each party gives up something of value | Time pressure; equal-power opponents; temporary settlements |
| Avoiding | Low | Low | Withdraws from or suppresses the conflict | Trivial issues; cooling-off periods; when others can resolve it better |
| Accommodating / Smoothing | Low | High | Places another's needs and concerns above your own | Preserving harmony; when you're wrong; building social credit |
Practice note: No single style is "best" Most people have a dominant style they default to under stress. Mature PMs can deploy any of the five depending on the situation. The five-mode conflict framework insight isn't "always collaborate" — it's " know your default and learn the other four."
Leading through change
Every project is, by definition, a change. The most technically perfect plan will fail if the people affected by it dig in their heels. This is why change leadership is examined so thoroughly.
three-phase change model three-stage model
Practice note: the three-phase change model Change Model A foundational model describing change as a sequence of three stages: Unfreeze → Change → Refreeze.
The model is deceptively simple, and that simplicity is precisely its value. Change initiatives fail most often because leaders skip Unfreeze (jumping straight to a new system that nobody understands the case for) or skip Refreeze (declaring victory and moving on, only to watch the team revert to old habits within a quarter).
Guidelines for implementing major change
The supplied research distils the change-leadership literature into a set of practical guidelines. Practical application benefits from recognising at least eight:
- Create a sense of urgency about the need for change
- Communicate a clear vision of the benefits to be gained
- Identify supporters, opponents, and the reasons for resistance
- Build a broad coalition to support the change
- Fill key positions with competent change agents
- Use task forces to guide implementation
- Empower competent people to help plan and implement
- Make dramatic, symbolic changes that affect the work
- Prepare people by explaining how the change will affect them personally
- Help people deal with the stress and difficulties of major change
- Provide early successes to build confidence
- Monitor progress and make necessary adjustments
- Keep people informed about progress
- Demonstrate continued optimism and commitment
How feelings shift during change
People don't experience change as a logical sequence — they experience it as an emotional one. The four-quadrant model in the supplied source maps the journey:
Practice note: Don't mistake the bottom of the curve for failure The transition from Denial through Resistance to Exploration is the worst part of the change emotionally — and the moment most often misread by impatient leaders. Persisting through Resistance is the change leader's hardest test. Backing off here is what causes change initiatives to die.
Handling specific resister archetypes
The conflict-escalation model identifies eight common resistance patterns and a tactical response to each:
| Resister | What they do | What to say |
|---|---|---|
| The passive complier | Agrees verbally, does nothing | "Are you quite clear about what I need from you?" "What's your first step going to be?" |
| The malicious complier | Does exactly what was asked, knowing it will fail | Walk through the steps together; agree on a corrected approach; secure commitment |
| The delayer | Always "about to start" | "Is there anything preventing you from beginning now?" |
| The reverser | Says it's a great idea, then undermines it | "I'm glad you think it's a good idea — what in particular do you like about it?" |
| The dodger | Avoids the request | When the request is reasonable, name them as the responsible party |
| The threatener | Implies negative consequences | "I appreciate your concern and I'll check it out. Meanwhile, what I'd like you to do is…" |
| The sympathy seeker | Lists personal reasons they can't | Empathise, hear them out, then unless reasons are sound, repeat the request |
| The traditionalist | "We've always done it this way" | "I understand the old way worked well — how can we adapt it to this new way?" |
Force-field analysis
Practice note: Force-Field Analysis A change-analysis technique (also three-phase change model) which proposes that any system contains two opposing sets of forces: driving forces that push for change and resisting forces that push against it. When the two are equal, the system is in equilibrium.
Practice note: The counter-intuitive insight Most leaders try to drive change by adding more driving force (more pressure, more urgency, more directives). This usually increases resistance proportionally. The more effective strategy is to reduce the resisting forces — address the fears, fill the skill gaps, protect status, acknowledge the sunk cost. Reducing resistance shifts the equilibrium without raising the temperature.
Pitfalls
Practice note: Where teams and change initiatives die
- Allowing Forming and Storming on the customer's clock instead of front-loading team development in the planning phase
- Skipping the Adjourning stage and losing all the lessons learned
- Bringing in external resources without honouring the procurement plan — a fast track to legal and audit trouble on applicable contracts
- Treating conflict as failure rather than recognising its positive payoffs
- Defaulting to one five-mode conflict framework mode instead of choosing the right one
- Skipping three-phase change model Unfreeze by jumping straight into the new system
- Skipping three-phase change model Refreeze by declaring victory too early
- Adding more driving force when you should be reducing resistance
Key takeaways
- five-stage team-development model five stages — Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning — should be largely front-loaded before project execution begins
- In-house vs external sourcing is a trade-off between context/cost and specialist skill — and external resources are governed by the procurement plan
- Virtual team success depends on meaningful work, voluntarism, social scaffolding, boundary spanners, shared platforms, and modular work design
- Conflict has positive payoffs when handled early and well — conflict-escalation model five stages tell you when to intervene
- five-mode conflict framework's five conflict modes are a toolkit, not a personality test — competent PMs can deploy any of them
- three-phase change model three-stage model (Unfreeze → Change → Refreeze) is foundational; skipping Unfreeze or Refreeze kills change initiatives
- People's feelings during change move through Denial → Resistance → Exploration → Commitment — persisting through Resistance is the leader's hardest test
- Force-field analysis says reducing resistance is usually more effective than increasing driving force
Applying the Guidance as a Controlled Practice
Use this subject as a decision aid, not as a label applied after the event. Start by defining the delivery problem, the people affected, the authority available and the consequences of a poor decision. Record assumptions before selecting an intervention. That simple discipline makes later review possible and prevents a preferred leadership style from being treated as the answer to every situation.
Six-Step Application Cycle
- Define the trigger. State the decision, behaviour, team condition or delivery risk that requires attention. Separate observation from interpretation.
- Map the context. Identify the project phase, task uncertainty, dependencies, stakeholder interests, time pressure, team capability and formal authority.
- Choose a proportionate response. Select the smallest intervention capable of improving the condition. Explain why it fits the evidence and what alternatives were rejected.
- Agree ownership and boundaries. Make decision rights, escalation points, review dates and non-negotiable safety or ethical limits visible to the people involved.
- Act and observe. Monitor both delivery indicators and human signals such as challenge, information sharing, participation, trust and follow-through.
- Review and adapt. Compare the result with the original intent. Retain, adjust or stop the intervention, and capture the learning for the next phase.
Evidence and Verification
| Required record | Purpose | Verification question |
|---|---|---|
| Conflict diagnosis | Makes the selected approach and its basis visible. | Can an independent reviewer understand why this response was chosen? |
| Selected intervention mode | Translates intent into owned actions, interfaces or boundaries. | Does every critical action have an owner, timing and escalation path? |
| Team communication and change plan | Preserves evidence of follow-through and learning. | Does the record show what changed, what did not and what happens next? |
Evidence should be proportionate to the project's risk and governance needs. A short decision note may be sufficient for a routine team adjustment; a high-consequence change may require sponsor approval, formal consultation, controlled records and a scheduled assurance review. Documentation must support judgement rather than replace it.
Review Questions
- What observable condition are we trying to change, and how will we know if it improves?
- Whose perspective is missing from the diagnosis or decision?
- Are authority, accountability and capability aligned, or are we asking someone to own an outcome they cannot control?
- Could the intervention suppress challenge, conceal risk or create dependency on one individual?
- What evidence will trigger escalation, adaptation or closure?
Practice boundary: Frameworks in this article organise thinking; they do not guarantee performance. Project context, contractual obligations, safety duties, workplace requirements and approved governance remain controlling.